The present invention relates to improved space layouts, table configurations and display configurations and more specifically to space, table and display assemblies that are configurable in many different ways to support conferencing requirements of differently sized groups of people.
It is common knowledge that when people share a common goal and work together toward that goal, the goal is typically achieved faster and more efficiently than if those same people worked separately toward the same goal. It is also common knowledge that, in most cases, people within large groups have different sets of strengths and that common goals can be achieved most efficiently and effectively by identifying tasks required to achieve the goals and assigning tasks to specific people within the larger group that have specific strengths particularly suited for achieve those tasks. Moreover, it is also generally accepted that there are different stages involved in achieving any common goal and that the extent of collaborative activities and communications at each stage are different.
For instance, during a first stage of achieving a common goal, at least one and in many cases several people within a large group formulate their own vision of a goal to achieve by the larger group. Second, after one or more people formulate their own vision of a goal, the vision or visions are shared with people in the larger group. People in the larger group critically discuss the individual vision or visions so that all merits and problems are brought to light. The people in the group settle on one common goal that all group members can agree to work toward. After a common goal is accepted by group members, the group identifies and agrees upon separate tasks to be completed in order to achieve the common goal and to identify subsets or teams (e.g., two, three, four, etc.) of people from the larger group best suited to achieve the tasks.
Third, after tasks have been assigned to smaller teams, the smaller teams apply their particular skills to the assigned tasks with an eye toward completing those tasks. Here, the larger process may be repeated again with each team member separately taking on different subsets of the team tasks.
Fourth, while the teams are working in parallel on their assigned tasks, the larger group may periodically get together to review progress by the teams, to modify the common goal or the directions in which the different teams are headed, to change the team members, etc.
Fifth, once all of the teams have completed their assigned tasks, the entire group gets together again to achieve the common goal by communicating how the tasks have been completed and the end results.
Office designers have known for a long time that the efficiency and effectiveness with which people perform specific types of activities or tasks is closely related to the environments in which the people perform those activities. For example, in the past, it has generally been accepted that collaborative activities between large groups of people such as sharing personal visions and discussing and identifying a common group goal are best performed in a large dedicated and confidential conference space or room away from private personal spaces (e.g., private offices or partition spaces). Where common spaces are dedicated to conferencing, people can come together in a relatively neutral location that is not specifically associated with any one group member or subset of group members. Where a space is generally confidential, people within the space are more likely to share unconventional ideas and concepts which often result in new common goals and ways of achieving those goals.
In addition, where large groups collaborate on ideas and information, typical resources (i.e. environmental enhancements) used to facilitate collaboration include a large table, surrounding chairs and some type of visual aid. The table is provided so that conference attendees have a convenient location to place reference materials such as paper documents, laptops and/or notepads for taking notes. In general it has been recognized that visual queues are very important in communication. For instance, where a first person is explaining a concept to a second person, by observing the second persons facial expressions (e.g., a grimace, a surprised look, etc.) and body movements (i.e., nodding of the head, shaking of the head, etc.) during explanation, the first person can usually gauge if the second person is understanding the concept, agrees or disagrees with the concept, wants to interject a comment or another related idea, etc. Similarly, where a third person is listening to the explanation, if the third person can see the second persons facial expressions and body movements, the third person also can gauge the second persons reaction to the presentation and, if necessary, interject helpful comments or, if the second person is showing signs of disagreement with the first person, may feel more comfortable questioning the first persons information or point of view. For this reason, many conference tables are configured so that people there around have at least some direct line of sight to other people at the table (i.e., the table top may be round, oval, etc.) and hence can visually gauge how ideas are being accepted, if ideas are being understood and if other people want to interject related ideas and comments.
Visual aids may include, for instance, a large pad of paper mounted to an easel, a large whiteboard, a large television, a large flat panel electronic display screen, a screen and projector, etc. Where visual aids are used, the visual aid is usually located within the conference space at a commanding or focal location within the space so that when a conference attendee uses the aid, others at the conference have a view of the information being presented. For instance, in known configurations where an electronic display is employed, the display is space away from and to one side of the conference table and is mounted to a wall that at least in part defines the conference space. Here, to help all conference attendees at a table to view the display screen, the screen is typically mounted at a height well above (e.g., the lower screen edge is at least a foot) the table top height.
As another example, it has generally been accepted that smaller group activities such as working on tasks assigned to smaller teams of people are best performed in smaller confidential spaces or rooms that include tables, chairs and, in many cases, visual aids (e.g., a pad of paper, a white board, an electronic display screen, etc.). Tables in these spaces are usually smaller than the tables provided in the larger conference spaces so that team members are more intimately located for idea sharing and collaboration. Again, confidential space fosters sharing of unconventional ideas and concepts and often results in innovative ways to complete tasks effectively and efficiently.
As one other example, it has generally been accepted that individuals need to work separately at some times in order to help achieve group goals and that the best environment for performing individual work is a private office or partition space where a person has access to a personal computer or the like. For instance, when identifying a personal vision for a group or when working on details required to complete larger tasks or achieve common goals, individuals often work best in private dedicated personal spaces.
To best accommodate all types of activities required to achieve group goals, most offices are currently configured to include at least three different types of space including large conference spaces, relatively smaller conference spaces and personal private type spaces (e.g., offices) where each of the spaces includes a table or desk suitable for the activities likely to be performed in the space, a chair or chairs and other resources such as a visual aids, computers, etc. Here, the theory is that groups of people are fluid between the different spaces, coming together in the conference spaces to discuss and define goals and tasks and to perform collaborative tasks and separating into the private spaces to complete detail type activities.
While offices that are physically divided into three different types of space are common and clearly have some advantages related to facilitating collaborative work, it is believed that these types of spaces also have several important shortcomings. First, despite efforts to arrange tables, chairs and visual aids within large conference rooms in ways that foster communication between attendees, often the end result is a configuration that adversely affects communication. For instance, where an electronic display is mounted to a wall at one end of a large conference table, many attendees at the table have to rotate their chairs or, in some cases, have to completely turn their chairs around to view information presented via the aid. In addition, in some cases, attendees may have to move their chairs away from the edge of the conference table in order to view information presented via the display without obstructing other attendee views. Here, where all attendees face generally in one direction toward the display screen, attendees cannot easily make eye contact with, or observe other visual queues from, other attendees and hence cannot determine if concepts are being understood, if other attendees want to interject comments or agree or disagree with information presented. Clearly lack of visual queues reduces communication effectiveness appreciably.
As another instance, where attendees move to a focal or commanding location within a conference space such as adjacent a display screen mounted on a conference space wall to present information, the dynamic within the space changes. To this end, when one attendee moves to a commanding location within a space, the dynamic changes from one of collaboration between peers to presentation by a single attendee that temporarily assumes the mantle of group leader. It is believed that when one group member assumes a commanding location within a space to present information, other conference attendees tend to become less critical of the information, ideas and concept presented and hence interchange of ideas is stifled.
As still one other instance, even where a person presenting information via a wall mounted display or the like remains seated at a conference table during the presentation, at least some of the people at the table still have to physically rotate their chairs toward the display screen or divert their field of view away from the presenter and toward the screen to view presented information. When chairs are rotated away from a presenter or fields of view are diverted from the presenter, the presenter loses the ability to sense visual queues.
Second, while movement between large group, small team and individual activities and spaces that facilitate those activities is, in theory, supposed to be fluid, in reality, such movement is usually interrupted and disjointed. In this regard, while people in large groups often become energized when common goals and tasks for achieving those goals are identified and when tasks are initially assigned to team members, after leaving a conference, attendees often lose focus, start to question the common goals or tasks assigned to achieve the goals and/or turn their attention to other activities unrelated to the common goals and tasks. In short momentum is lost when the large group breaks up to pursue assigned tasks.
Third, while electronic display screens are advantageous for sharing information among groups and teams of people, currently such displays are relatively expensive and are usually dedicated to single conference spaces. For this reason, while large electronic displays may be provided in large conference spaces for use by large groups where the cost associated therewith is justifiable, in many cases such displays are not provided in smaller conference spaces. Instead, in smaller spaces, less expensive visual aids such as whiteboards or large paper pads are often provided to facilitate collaboration.
Where large displays (e.g., televisions or the like) have been provided on wheeled carts to enable movement between two or more different conference spaces, despite being moveable, in many cases these types of displays are positioned at one location in one space and are not moved among spaces due to their size, linkage requirements to computers, etc., to drive the displays and so on.
Fourth, many people find it difficult to share their ideas and concepts in large groups and, in particular, in groups where other group members will likely have different and divergent ideas and where some group members may have relatively strong personalities. In fact, there are at least some studies that suggests that the best collaborative activities take place in pairs (i.e., in groups of two) as most people can develop a sense of trust with one person more quickly than with larger groups of people. Therefore, when goals, tasks and personal skills are discussed in large group conferences, often many people that have different and valuable views, suggestions and comments do not express themselves and goals and tasks are set without the benefit thereof and, in many cases, without complete acceptance by all group members. While iterative large group and small team conferences may minimize the effects of this problem, in many cases the lack of fluidity between large and small groups and associated spaces causes conference attendees to forgo such solutions and instead the group ploughs ahead without the benefit of all ideas being expressed and without complete buy in to group goals.
Fifth, providing many different spaces that are each dedicated to one type of use (e.g., large conferencing, small team conferencing or individual private use) is relatively expensive and often results in spaces that are relatively underutilized. For instance, in many cases, while a company may periodically need a large conference space to share information, in many cases such large conference spaces will go unused during more than 90% of normal business hours.
Sixth, requiring people to separate and come together multiple times and to break the flow of activities between different spaces breaks trains of thought and generally slows momentum toward achieving goals. Where goals are slowly achieved businesses often fail.
One solution to at least some of the problems discussed above has been to provide a plurality of relatively small table assemblies in a large conference space where the table assemblies can be brought together to form a large conference table or can be separated to facilitate smaller team sized conferencing break out sessions. In these cases the tables may be mounted on casters or the like to facilitate easy rearrangement of the assemblies for whatever purpose they are required. In addition, in these cases often some type of linking mechanism is provided to lock adjacent table tops together to form a large table arrangement when desired and some type of brake mechanism is provided on the casters so that the separate table tops do not move about with respect to each other. The brake mechanism is also used to lock the separate table assemblies in positions after the table tops are separated to facilitate break out sessions. Here, a single space can be used generally to either facilitate a large conference about a single table arrangement including the smaller tables or to facilitate two or more smaller conferences by physically separating the table assemblies.
In addition, multiple tables can be used to maintain fluidity of a series of large and small conferences within a single space so that greater progress toward defining goals and completing tasks can be achieved in a shorter amount of time. For instance, with small tables together to form a large conference table top arrangement, a large conference can be conducted. Thereafter, the tables can be separated and smaller breakout sessions can be conducted followed by bringing the tables back together to conduct yet another large conference session to further share small group information.
Unfortunately, while multi-table assemblies deal with some of the problems discussed above, such assemblies do not address other problems. For instance, multiple table assemblies do not address the issues related to location of large display screens or other visual aids that require conference attendees to physically turn away from other attendees at a conference in order to view presented information or the fact that attendees that use the visual aids are located in commanding positions that reduce criticism and comments from other attendees.
As another instance, multiple table assemblies do not address issues related to providing electronic displays for each of a plurality of smaller conference table configurations when breakout sessions occur. Indeed, where only a single electronic display is provided in a large conference space, when breakout sessions occur, the single display can only be used by members of one of the breakout sessions at a time.
As still one other instance, while separate table assemblies can be moved to different locations within a large conference space to facilitate breakout sessions, such physical distance between tables without visual barriers of any type (e.g., vertical walls of partition systems of some type) often is insufficient to give people the feeling of being in a space that is confidential or at least semi-confidential with respect to the other areas of the larger space. As in the case of sharing ideas in large groups, many people have difficulty sharing ideas in spaces where confidentiality is suspect.
In addition, even where separate table assemblies are provided to facilitate both large conferences and small breakout sessions, it is believed that several factors discourage using the tables separately to facilitate multiple breakout sessions. First, the lack of relatively expensive electronic display screens for use with each separate table assembly discourage breakout sessions using the separate tables. Second, problems associated with suspect confidentiality have discouraged separation of the table assemblies to facilitate break out sessions. Third, it is believed that any work required to rearrange tables about a conference room including disconnecting linking mechanisms between tables, unlocking caster brake mechanisms, etc., operates as a strong impediment to rearranging those tables. The impediment is exacerbated where additional tasks (e.g., realigning tables, relocking brake mechanisms and reconnecting linking mechanisms, etc.) have to be completed to reconfigure the tables in the original large table arrangement. The impediment is still further exacerbated where the locking and unlocking and brake mechanisms are not completely intuitive to users as many users will not routinely use such features or where the activities require users to crawl under table tops to perform the locking and linking activities.
In cases where the tasks associated with reconfiguring table assemblies is are not understood or are considered to burdensome, after a large conference around a multiple table assembly arrangement, when small break out sessions are to occur, instead of breaking up the table arrangement, conference attendees simply leave the conferencing space and conduct smaller team meetings in private offices or other smaller conference spaces (i.e., in other rooms dedicated to conferencing). Thus, despite added costs associated with providing a versatile table configuration, the table configuration is not used for its intended purpose.
One other solution to some of the problems discussed above is to provide a lap top to each conference attendee and to present information to the attendees via lap top display screens. Here, attendees needn't turn away from a conference table to view information being presented and each attendee has an unobstructed view of presented information. In addition, when the attendees separate to facilitate smaller breakout sessions, each attendee has her own laptop display screen for collaborating with team members.
One problem with sharing conference information via laptops is that attendees focus on the information on their laptops instead of making visual contact with the other attendees. In addition, while information is being presented by one attendee, often other attendees will want to use their laptops to locate other information that they want to share with the other attendees. Where presentation information is provided via laptops, non-presenting attendees cannot use their laptops for other purposes.
Thus, it would be advantageous to have a new conference configuration wherein all conference attendees have a clear and generally unobstructed view of information being presented via visual aids and particularly via display screens. In addition, it would be advantageous to have a conferencing configuration where table sections can easily be arranged in different orientations to accommodate large or small groups of attendees. Moreover, it would be advantageous to have a conference configuration wherein display screens could be used in multiple positions within the conference space and, in at least some cases, outside the conference space, to share information where the supporting structure that facilitates movement of the displays enables extremely simple and intuitive movement.